Last week’s US Weekly cover featured a smiling Elton John and his longterm partner, David Furnish, cradling their newborn baby, Zachary. It was an adorable photo and as Kaiser pointed out it was groundbreaking in that it was the first cover photo on a major celebrity glossy featuring a same sex couple with their baby. (Ricky Martin and Clay Aiken have both had covers with their babies, but they were featured alone without a partner.) Not everyone was pleased about John and Furnish’s adorable US cover, however, and a grocery store in Arkansas, Harps, put a “family shield” cover on the magazine to protect little kids from the frightening image of two men and a baby. It seems to be the case that just a single store did this, that it wasn’t a general policy, and a spokesperson told GLAAD that people at that store complained and that the family shield thing had nothing to do with corporate policy. After this controversy came to light, the shield has since been removed. The new US Weekly magazine is out later today and features Sandra Bullock. The inset photo of Jesse James and Kat Von D fawning over each other is potentially more damaging to little hearts and minds than this.

A Harps supermarket in Mountain View, Ark., censored an Us Weekly cover featuring Elton John, husband David Furnish and their new baby, Zachary. Deemed inappropriate for “young Harps shoppers,” the store placed a “family shield” in front of the magazine.

Twitter user @jennhudd saw the censored cover and began tweeting a photo to celebrities like Ellen DeGeneres, Anderson Cooper and Neil Patrick Harris, asking them to “bring attention” to the store’s decision.

The Mountain View Harps responded to a call from PopEater on Wednesday afternoon with a curt “no comment” before hanging up. A call to the corporate office had us placed on hold, redirected and sent to a voice mail when asked for official comment.

CoverAwards.com had better luck speaking to Harps — a cashier told the site Harps was “in a no-win situation” as children being shielded from the magazine cover would “have to know at some point [about gay families].”

PopEater’s Naughty But Nice Rob Shuter reported that the Elton John cover sold poorly and wondered if America wasn’t ready for “two men and a baby.” Now he calls the censorship “very sad,” asking, “We can let our families watch ‘Jersey Shore’ but not see a picture of Elton, his partner and their beautful baby boy?”

After originating the picture of the censored cover, @jennhudd reported the “family shields” had been removed, likely as a result of the Internet’s interest in the issue. Jennifer sent a series of tweets suggesting offended parties call the Harps office and file complaints.

[From Popeater]

It’s great that people can use the Internet so effectively to rally around causes. Something like this may seem insignificant, but when a local grocery store gets called out by the media it sends a message worldwide that this kind of blatant prejudice is not acceptable.

Also, I doubt that this issue didn’t sell well due to the same sex couple issue. I’ve read that covers with men on them don’t sell as well as women (I’m having a hard time finding that reference, but it’s true). While Elton may have a lot of fans, he’s not as sensational (or frankly – young) as the regular tabloid fare and it’s understandable that he might not move copies like a more dramatic story. Plus, your eyes focus on Furnish in that photo and he’s not very recognizable.